Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-12-20
The Aqueduct Bridge and the Proposed
Draw.

To the Editor of THE EVENING STAR:
The delay In the reconstruction OF the Aqueduct
bridge has been made the occasion OF more than
one attack on Col. Hams, the engineer officer 1n
charge OF the work. His statement In THE star
OF the 10th shows that he feels that he IS not tc
blame. Among such charges is one that the PROPOSE
ton pending in the last Congress for draw de.
layed the work. Such certainly is not the fact
II will be remembered that the six months limit
OF time within which the AQueduct bridge could
be bought by the United States expired the 2lst
December, 1856, and thai through the unwilling
ness OF the Alexandria interest a settlement was
only secured during the last business hour OF
that day. The Secretary OF War, in the exercise Of
sound Judgment, January 10, 1887, convened q
board OF engineers TO consider project for the
construction OF the Aqueduct bridge. The board
made Its report TO the Chief OF Engineers on the
24th OF january, 1887. and being by them COM
municated TO the Secretary OF War on the 27th OF
January, 1887, was transmitted to Congress on
the 3lst January, 1887.
Rotary reported that TO build the bridge without a
draw would obstruct navigation. Did this action
of the secretary involve delay? Certainly not fol
on the Sd OF February, 1887, the proposals for the
bridge, without draw, were framed. and adver-
Used In washington paper on the Sth February,
1881 FOR the sth, 9TH 10th and nth OF that month
and the 4th and 5th OF March. The bids were
opened March Z, 1887. 1t is charged that In this
way Hams has offended, and that he ''extended
the advertisement OF bids one month
beyond the ten days specified in the act OF Con-
greSS" just what act OF Congress contains this
limit OF '-ten days" is not known; certainly the
act OF June p, 1886, In regard TO the bridge i'm
poses no such restriction on the Secretary In the
reconstruction OF the "AQueduct bridge" and as
will be seen from its provisions, no directions were
given or limitations liked, except as TO the cost OF
the title to the bridge and reconstruction.
IL is also charged that the public were ''unwill-
ing 10 have the draw and that the interests Of the
shipping In the District of Columbia did not need
It. The absurdity OF such statements is made
most palpably apparent when it is remembered
that the harbor commission OF 1872 composed, as
II was, OF eminent engineers, advised IL, and laid
out above the Aqueduct bridge on the District
side. harbor wharf front or more than 1000 feet
and by It's report showed channel OF navtgable
The only opposition which has ever been made
to the draw has enanated from those whose in
terests would weigh but little in contrast with
those OF the public, and or riparian owners entitled
TO the free use OF both sides Of the river within the
limits OF recognized port Of entry and to the
extent o. nearly h miles The engineers convened
reported the need OF draw and they could GER
tatnly not do otherwise, as under the law they
were charged with the duty OF reporting all OBJ
structions TO navigation. The Secretary of War
made like suggestion, and so thoroughly was
Congress impressed with such necessity that
amendments to the deficiency bill looking to a
draw having been introduced In each House. the
lower House, In its bill No. pa, and which
passed March /, 1887, appropriated the sum OF
$4,000 for the completion Of the bridge nth a
the Sd March, 1887.
This feature formed part of the deficiency bill
did not suffice for the work OF enrolment, IL
would have become the law OF the land.
senator ingalls,, whose good work In behalf of
this District all its citizens appreciate, has he
says, been Informed shat no masted vessel has
passed above the present site OF the bridge for a
century" That such has been the case for more
than nifty years last past all admit, and for the
reason that no such vessel could pass beneath a
structure scarcely thirty feet above tide-w alter;
but before that time vessels with maSts did load
at the Little Falls direct for Fortress Monroe and
other points, and this statement can be abun-
dainty verified. Congress In 1893 created this
port and extended its limits 70 a point nearly 3x
miles above the bridge, and a community which
has for fifty years been thus imposed upon and
made TO bear the burden OF an obstruction In the
shape Of a tcooden bridge naturally became impa-
tient when the national legislature undertook to
perpetuate that obstruction In IRON and hesitates
10 use such precautions as Will insure TO
parties interest in nearly miles Of water front,
the free navigation OF a river declared navigaOle
by law, and forming part Of a port OF entry and
delivery. II should also not be forgotten that
those who clamOr so loudly now for haste are O,
that section OF Virginia TO whose representations
less than all others Is the credit due OF securing the
bridge In its present plan. We do not believe that
except In this District, such an obstruction would
be permitted for six months over one part OF a
port, while below 1t the Long bridge, In the
charge OF a railroad company holding IL on condl-
ton 10 so keep its drawbrdgeS las not to i'm
pede the free navigation OF the Potomac River at
all times" cannot be passed at night because for
sOOth this railroad company will not open the
draw.